After a certain period of time if there are no posts to a thread does that thread get dropped from the forums listings?

It would be understandable if that's the case, but I'm curious because a news item was realeased today that's pertinant to an old, old thread I initiated but I don't see the thread listed. Or maybe I'm misremembering the title..."Gay Marriage Other Than America."

Thanks in advance for your reply.

I definitely remember a thread with a title like "Gay Marriage Other Than America" but have spent the last fifteen minutes looking for it without success.

Do you think it was one of those threads that got deleted because of the bad behavior of some of its participants?

"Outing" and "gay marriage" seem to elicit extremely clear-cut "for" or "against" positions and draw emotional reactions that can lead to strong words.

Let's wait for JguyUSguy to give us the correct answer!

KF

Yes, guys. Sorry if some of the purged old threads were great old threads.

Because of increased usership, increased use of photo attachments, etc., we were running costs past our Groupee plan for several months running (which tripled our costs) so we used an algorithm to purge threads that hadn't been responded to for a certain length of time. (Can't remember the exact length, but it meant that hundreds of threads were purged.)

Thanks JguyUSguy. That makes perfect sense and is the exact logical explanation which I expected. If there's no objection I'll restart the topic to see if there's any interest.

Kimball, with your verve, brains and wit, why not start a new thread on the issue of gay marriage itself? It's been quite a while since we last broached the subject.

I don't see any need for gay marriage EXCEPT for the all-important issue of legal protection. Your partner gets sick? You want the right for access to him in hospital. He passes away? You don't want to be kicked out your apartment or denied his pension.

What I mean is that a gay relationship should be a partnership. The word "marriage" for me conjures images of macho "husband" and wallflower "wife". Surely hetero-marriage and homo-marriage don't have to have the same template, or even the same definition. "Marriage" when it comes to gays sounds so stupid! "Partnership" is what true love is all about when two men decide to spend the rest of their lives together.

We need to be equal, to be "partners". Together in life, love and death.

That is my philosophy.

How about you, Kim?

KF

PS. As for their "shelf life"... why not 'service' your threads as well as you do your relationships?

quote:

Originally posted by Kazuhito fan:
PS. As for their "shelf life"... why not 'service' your threads as well as you do your relationships?

I seem to recall hearing something to the effect that some members were intimidated to enter discussions with really long "histories" (apparently feeling they should read the entire thread from the beginning, I guess). So perhaps it is even preferable that threads that have had a long, full life be "reincarnated," rather than kept on "life support". (I don't have strong feeling either way, though.)

Oh, and as for the gay marriage issue, I don't think anyone is against it, though we may not want it for ourselves. I, personally, may not see much value in marriage, per se, (gays can't possibly make the institution of marriage a bigger joke than heteros have already, IMO) but that doesn't mean I am opposed to it being available to those who do. Our main differences lie in whether there is any real value in sacrificing the legal protections offered by something like civil unions today in order to hold out indefinitely for the "ceremonial" benefits of "marriage".

Greg, you're right about it feeling sort of intrusive to suddenly join in a long-running thread you haven't participated in before, although it would be fun and probably useful to be able to look back through some of the older 'classic' threads we've had here on JguyUSguy over the years.

As for gay marriages, from a personal point of view I don't think I would ever be marriage material - I can't stay faithful as hard as I try and as determined as I am when I enter a new relationship which feels like it's going to be a major one. And from what I hear from my gay friends, I'm in the majority, and wonder if this inclination to promiscuity is part of gay male make-up (and I'm not talking about eye shadow).

Hmmm....I'm realizing I've changed my tune (which in some ways makes me happy that the sins of my past on JguyUSguy have been washed away by the mercy of time.)

I [now] agree with greg. Atlantic, I'm not sure legal marriage for heteros has all that much to do with faithfulness, given the statistics. The history of marriage reveals that it was more to do with family dynasties, inheritances and the like. We're back where we started, ne?

Recent events here in California are interesting. I welcome your comments about Bill would expand domestic partner law in California:measure includes all straight unmarried couples. Gays leading straights. What a concept!

Yeah, you know many people think it's inevitable that governments will in the future come around to defining households as groups of people who care about each other - married with kids, unmarried lovers (whatever gender mix), widow roommates, whatever group that can show commitment. It's the only way to write legislation and regulations that'll come closest to equal treatment in the broadest practical way. Maybe everyone will stop screaming at each other then and governments can get out of the marriage business altogether.

Interesting.

I wonder what the criteria will be.

Good question. Some kind of proof of lasting cohabitation?